The agony of the rat or the slaughter of a calf remains present in thought not through pity but as the zone of exchange between man and animal in which something of one passes into the other. - Deleuze and Guattari, What Is Philosophy?

Pages

Thursday, July 23, 2015

The existential dimension of conflict, compromise, and enemies.

Over at Another Panacea, Josh cites Sarah Shugars on compromise (both these blog posts are super short, you should just read them). From Shugars blog post:

…if a full victory is beyond our reach perhaps a step towards justice is better than the status quo. Or, perhaps, a step towards justice will simply mollify the moderates, who will no longer feel the need to fight for more robust reform. On the other hand, refusing to compromise may earn you enemies – alienating moderates who might otherwise be willing to support your cause. These are complex, strategic questions which every movement and activist must evaluate and consider. Importantly, a willingness to compromise for the good of the movement should not be confused with an instinctual response of conflict-avoidance.

I think this is generally right. Compromise and conflict have to both be strategic decisions about building coalitions, striving for justice, and relieving suffering. To ideologically refuse compromise ahead of time is to promote the purity of your (beautiful) soul over the possibility of amelioration of suffering for actually existing other beings. Okay, but Josh is not so sure about the last line from Shugars. He argues:

I don’t think Shugars justifies that last line: perhaps it’s wrong to avoid conflict, but perhaps too those instincts have wisdom, such as the importance of preserving comity for future matters. A nation torn by value-based disagreements can fail to fix a lot of roads and schools while they glare daggers at each other. (Ask me how I know!) And activists are not always the best judges of either their opponents or the effective strategies for achieving their goals (nor are philosophers and political theorists, of course). In any case the question of instinct here suppresses a decision about the default strategies we should adopt that is itself strategic and requires the utmost prudence and practical wisdom.

I take Josh to be saying that we should strategically always try first to deescalate, that we should always try for coalition, that we should always assume the other comes as friend first, not foe. And I think there is a lot of merit here, too. Okay, but! struggle is often an existential question as much as it is a strategic question. As Jean Genet quotes an old Palestinian woman in The Prisoner of Love, "to have been dangerous for a thousandth of a second" is the only possibility for existence. (I steal this shamelessly from Bill Haver's "The ontological priority of violence"). Thus, when someone like Fred Moten proposes a "general antagonism," he is neither advocating a strategic understanding of antagonism, or a preservation of beautiful souls, but rather the existential requirement of having a relationship of antagonism against a culture bent of his destruction. He is affirming the ontological necessity of non-neutrality in existence. This tension is one that haunts me, and I have discussed before in the importance of pluralism. I worry that my ability to be like, "Of course I should treat this person as a friend first" cannot be generalizable.

Okay, the other two posted poems, so I guess I should too (mine is a lot longer than theirs, sorry). From June Jordan:

I Must Become a Menace to My EnemiesDedicated to the Poet Agostinho Neto,President of The People’s Republic of Angola: 19761I will no longer lightly walk behinda one of you who fear me: Be afraid.I plan to give you reasons for your jumpy fitsand facial ticsI will not walk politely on the pavements anymoreand this is dedicated in particularto those who hear my footstepsor the insubstantial rattling of my grocerycartthen turn aroundsee meand hurry onaway from this impressive terror I must be:I plan to blossom bloody on an afternoonsurrounded by my comrades singingterrible revenge in mercilessacceleratingrhythmsButI have watched a blind man studying his face.I have set the table in the evening and sat downto eat the news.RegularlyI have gone to sleep.There is no one to forgive me.The dead do not give a damn.I live like a loverwho drops her dime into the phonejust as the subway shakes into the stationwasting her messagecanceling the question of her call:fulminating or forgetful but lateand always after the fact that could save orcondemn meI must become the action of my fate.2How many of my brothers and my sisterswill they killbefore I teach myselfretaliation?Shall we pick a number?South Africa for instance:do we agree that more than ten thousandin less than a year but that less thanfive thousand slaughtered in more than sixmonths willWHAT IS THE MATTER WITH ME?I must become a menace to my enemies.3And if Iif I ever let you slidewho should be extirpated from my universewho should be cauterized from earthcompletely(lawandorder jerkoffs of the first theterrorist degree)then let my body fail my soulin its bedeviled lecheriesAnd if Iif I ever let love gobecause the hatred and the whisperingsbecome a phantom dictate I o-bey in lieu of impulse and realities(the blossoming flamingos of mywild mimosa trees)then let love freeze meout.I must becomeI must become a menace to my enemies.